Stop giving this treasonous coward more publicity he doesn't deserve. It's one thing to fight the system, it's another to just run away like a coward because you are afraid to face the consequences of your actions. Yep.. he might have gotten tossed in jail. But I guess what he was doing wasn't worth the price of becoming a martyr to him.
He's just a coward.. pure and simple. He's no better than a bank robber who steals and then runs into his little hole and hides.
Or, heaven forbid, people can learn to stop living with so much crap so they don't need so much money. I just recently moved and was ASTOUNDED by the amount of stuff I had, most of which I don't even use. Two months later, I still have crap in boxes that haven't been unpacked because I just don't use them. So, at some point, I spent part of my income on something I didn't really need. To really make the point, 12 years ago when I moved cross country, I used the smallest UHaul trailer there was and towed it behind my car. 9 years ago, when I moved locally, I only need '2 guys and a truck' to move all the furniture and boxes. This time, I needed three moving crates, and we didn't bring one stick of furniture except our bed and two lawn chairs.
Here is an example of living with less. When we moved, we didn't bring any furniture or appliances with us because they take up a lot of space to ship cross country. The house we purchased didn't have a microwave, and we decided not to buy one until we figure out how we are going to deal with the small kitchen.
Two months later, we are considering never buying one. We've re-learned how to take leftovers and cook them into something better rather than just reheating. We don't buy frozen convenience foods anymore. Surprisingly, or food bill has dropped as we consume all of our food instead of throwing it out, and purchase lower cost ingredients instead of higher-cost pre-made foods. My wife has lost 10 pounds, and I've lost 7. Without changing any of our exercise habits, except we now live in a two story home instead of a one story home.
Another example. We no longer commute 40 miles (my wife) or 60 (me) miles a day to work. We moved to a smaller town with a lower cost of living. My commute is now zero, my company allowed me to work from home. My wife's commute is now 20 miles a day. I fill up my car every other week when it reaches about half a tank instead of once a week when it was almost empty. I figure we are saving over $200/month just on gas, both on commuting and just living in a smaller community, and we'll put about 1/3rd the miles on our vehicles.
It is possible right now for my wife to completely stop working with all of the savings we have. She doesn't want to, so are taking her income and just stashing it away for retirement.
If many in the US could find a way to return to one-income households, that would remove a significant amount of labor from the job market and allow for the continued automation of jobs.
But.. just in case, I've got a sailboat ready. If forced to, my wife and I can easily become liveaboards and live off our retirement in the Caribbean without all of the socialist BS so many slackers want.
When I run out of games to play on my Samsung, I still won't consider Apple because I think their interface and control-freak issues mostly suck the big one. My company forced me to have one for awhile, so I had two phones. I just recently gave it back because a 'free' phone is worth exactly that; I'd rather pay for my Android than use a free iPhone.
Fortunately, I'm not one of those people who just have to have the latest game or phone so I can be part of the 'in' crowd. I'm happy waiting until my old phone breaks before getting a new one and playing the few games I have for the few minutes a day I play them because I'm not addicted to my fucking phone.
The problem with the US elections has nothing to do with money (at least not directly) or whether people are capable of deciding who to vote for.
I'll prove it with this statement... why don't you run for office???
I'll wait while you form a response....
I'll bet the reasons fell into either it doesn't interest you, you can't afford to take the time off, you don't want the public scrutiny, you don't think you could get elected, you are too busy, or a ton of other reasons.
Which is why we basically have dedicated politicians, only someone who really wants to be a politician wants to run for office. And they usually have some sort of dedicated income so they don't worry about having a job if they lose. Or in 4 years when they get kicked out.
I've talked with a few people who have run for local political positions, and most have said they would never do it again because of the experience. My wife discourages me from public office whenever I bring it up because she was involved in local elections when she was young.
We get the politicians we get because no one else wants the job.
On a side note, I always find it funny that people complain about money in politics, and how they want to get rid of it. But what they really mean is they want to get rid of all the money from groups they don't approve of. They don't want the Koch brothers to have any say, but they don't mind if the Sierra Club or Everytown does. They complain about how money influences politics. But can't answer the question about why, if it influences it so much, doesn't the NRA give a lot of money to anti-gun politicians in order to sway their opinions??
Maybe it's the actions of the politicians that attract the money, not the money changing the actions of the politicians. Doesn't it make more sense for organizations to give money to the politicians they want to get elected rather than give money to those that disagree with them?? In other words, just because ice cream sales go up in the summer and it's hot in the summer doesn't mean that ice cream makes it hot out. Just because the NRA gives money to a politician that votes against gun control doesn't mean that the money caused him to vote that way. After all, Bloomberg has pretty big pockets too.
Our company started up some Big Data projects. Well, no one at work knows Big Data, so they went out and hired a bunch of new people. There are no 'old people' on the team. So naturally, none of the 'old people' are going to know it, except possible by some book learning. It's the company's own fault that none of the 'old people' know Big Data, because they won't put them on the teams.
In our company, we do sprints, and only put people in projects that already have the skills necessary to do the work. There is one special team that does research into new tech, but nine times out of ten, we hire people to implement it rather than train internally. Why?? Because we are already all busy and we don't have time to wait for me to train my replacement and then for me to learn the new stuff.
And this crap about new people not knowing the old tech is the same thing. Back in the 'old days', we had a concept where we would rotate people through maintenance and new development. That way they learn multiple systems and skills. But we don't do that anymore because Johnny is a web developer and we need his skills on the web development team. We don't have time for him to learn back end development.
The largest blame for corporations not having 'talented' people is the corporate environment and it's stupid rules. However, there are also a lot of people that won't learn new things, or old things. Mostly because they just aren't as bright as they think they are, and it takes too much effort.
Now, I'm a 56 year old 38 year IT veteran, who started out hacking the college HP so I could get accounts with better priority. I'm the kind of person that says "I don't know it, but I can learn it" and over the years have seen my salary grow because I can just as easily write in COBOL as I can Java, and a host of other languages. I can hand wire serial and network cables, build windows and unix servers, run cables through ceilings, and even administer phone systems. Because I've been lucky enough to work for smaller companies that didn't have the luxury of hiring specialized talents. Or stupid rules about what a developer is allowed to have access to.
My advice to developers is stop working for the big guys, take a small cut in pay and go work for someone that doesn't have a big shop so you can learn lots of stuff. Because, when you can work in any aspect of the IT world, you become far more valuable to your company when they realize they can put you in any project and you can perform.
Those supposed health groups that try and tell all of us that sugar, soda, and corn syrup are all evil and shouldn't be consumed have been playing this same game. How dare Coke try and refute the lies those groups are spreading.
Funny thing, I rarely drink soda anymore, and I'm still overweight. Could it possibly be that other factors are involved?? Like not having enough physical activity?? Or just simply eating too much??
Everyone knows that too many calories and not enough physical activity causes weight gain. But a few feel it is their responsibility to get things banned because some people just can't control their own eating habits. They would ban something that many enjoy in moderation just to impact the few that still will be overweight because they have numerous issues with their caloric intake and burn rates.
I grew up with soda in the house. It was a treat. We had it once in awhile. We always had whole milk for dinner. I drank water in the summer from the hose, and the rest of the time from the tap. I had one or two bowls of sugary cereal every morning for breakfast. Yet I wasn't overweight because I rode my bike or walked everywhere I needed, my parents didn't cart my sorry ass around town unless the weather was really bad. I had a newspaper route, which for some reason has been deemed too dangerous for kids anymore. My parents let me walk the three blocks to the school playground as a young child without worry some nosy busybody would call the cops on them abandoning their kids. Oh.. wait.. my dad was a cop. We ate pizza and had milk shakes in the school cafeteria,. Yet, two years after I graduated from high school, a friends mom said I looked much better than that skinny kid I was in high school. Apparently, school lunches, soda, and sugary cereals don't make kids fat because most of my friends lived the same way.
Soda is not causing our kids to get fat. Frosted Flakes are not causing our kids to get fat.
Parents who don't encourage their kids to get off their asses and play outside are causing our kids to get fat. Parents who don't know how to cook and get carry-out every night are causing our kids to get fat. Parents who believe Kraft Mac and Cheese can be served several nights a week are making our kids fat. Parents who keep large supplies of soda and snacks around the house are making our kids fat.
In general, parents are making our kids fat. And no one else, not even the schools, are responsible.
It's also how you examine and repudiate the bull shit put out by so many people who want to control people's choices by telling everyone soda, corn syrup, and sugar are all evil and no one should every use them.
Bull shit on the battery life. I get 3 days on my Samsung watch, 4 if I turn mine off at night. I've had it for over a year and haven't noticed any change in battery life either. I'm sure there are some people that get only 2 days, I did when I first got it and was looking at it every 5 minutes.
They need to add a wireless charge option though, my Samsung phone has that. No reason the watch can't.
And the Apple watch is a toy for even richer liberals. Must be, because it has fewer functions and costs more. (The low end Apple watch doesn't have the same type of screen glass as the one that is priced just higher than the Samsung watch.)
At the end of the day, my Samsgung watch is at 85%. I easily get 3 days of use before having to recharge. 4 if I turn it off overnight.
Suck it Apple.. you weren't even clever enough to figure out how to make your throwback watch waterproof or figure out how to include a camera.
What an overpriced, last generation POS the Apple watch is. But all the Apple users are like 'Ooooohhh... look at the pretty button'.
Meh.. if you have an Apple phone, then I guess you are already used to Apple's lackluster choice of options. And lack of innovation. They can only 'innovate' if someone else does it first.
And based on the number if times the climate change fear mongers change their models and find excuses past predictions didn't come close, I'd say any future prediction is just about worthless. At any level.
While I think this is a great advance over current tech, I have current tech on my wrist. And it is very useful. I charge it once every three days, overnight. And while it's display is off all the time, turning it to look at it turns it on, so I don't understand what your complaint is.
I'm sure a minority of people who couldn't afford them complained about the big, bulky cell phones when they first came out and didn't see a need for them. Jealousy often results in such feelings, it's like the Aesop fable about the fox who couldn't reach the grapes, and concluded they were probably sour anyway. Many like that wouldn't survive a day without their modern cell phone.
But... back to your real point.. I also see no reason why a gray-scale device like this wouldn't be perfect. There is nothing on my current smart watch that requires color, other than to make things look pretty. However, it will have to have some type of light to be view-able in the dark.
And a camera. It has to have a camera. So many current models don't have one, and they are missing out on one of the most convenient features of a wearable computer.
So, your solution is to penalize all of those that know how to use a gun in order to stop the few that cause problems. Which has been shown repeatedly doesn't work, criminals are a very creative bunch. Instead, people point to senseless statistics as if killing 9 people is acceptable, but 10 is not.
You sir, sound like an idiot. An idiot who likes to generalize. I've known many people who shoot, and the vast majority of them are not beer drinking good 'ol boys. They are my neighbors, my family, my friends, and my fellow geeky workers.
NRA doesn't 'pander' to anyone. The NRA is supported by millions of people who use guns, and it simply echos their views. The tired generalization that somehow the NRA is pushing an agenda is misplaced, the millions of VOTERS who support the NRA are pushing an agenda. The NRA is no different from the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, who also are supported by millions of people who help to shape their agendas.
The real problem is idiots who think they know what is best for everyone else, probably because their ego is so huge. The majority of gun owners I know simply want to be left alone and allowed to target shoot in peace, buy a gun whenever they find one they like, and be able to defend themselves if necessary.
I am also anti-stupid-fucking-idiot-with-a-gun. The problem is determining who the stupid-fucking-idiots are. I personally don't trust you to make that judgement, it sounds to me you are like most car drivers.. everyone driving faster than you is an asshole and everyone driving slower is an idiot. You talk like you would think you are the only one that knows exactly the right speed to travel.
When you and your fellow anti-gun fanatics can come up with a method that keeps guns out of the hands of the very small minority of criminals and allow the far greater number of legal gun owners to go out and target shoot, carry a gun for defensive purposes, and collect guns without being overly burdened with fees or procedures, or having to register their property, let me know.
Until then, please leave me the fuck alone. Your tired, ignorant rhetoric is getting boring. My wife an I own several revolvers, pistols, bolt-action rifles, and semi-automatic rifles. Never once has any of them been pointed at another person or animal. They have been used to shred a large number of paper targets and put holes into plastic water-filled bottles (which where collected and recycled afterward.) They have been used to help my wife sleep at night when I'm away. And to make me feel a bit safer investigating what that noise was at night.In my 56 years of living, and probably 46 years of shooting, no one has been even remotely put into danger by my actions.
Insinuating that somehow I shouldn't be allowed to have guns because you know someone who is an idiot or because someone else shot somebody is just moronic. If we used that logic, we should also remove all the cars from the roads and knives from our kitchens.
Oh wait.. several years ago in the UK, a bunch of people suggested just that.. that pointy kitchen knives had no use other than killing people and should be banned. It seems that once guns were effectively banned, people started finding other ways to kill people. I can't wait for the day when cricket bats become the weapon of choice. Oh.. wait... during some riots in London, miniature baseball bats became the self-defense weapon of choice when the unarmed police couldn't control the crowds.
The real problem is a very small minority of people sometimes want to hurt other people. And all the banning of devices in the world will never stop that.
The first lie is that everyone will use autonomous cars in any recent period. It will take decades to get the old cars off the roads. And there are no autonomous motorcycles or scooters or bicycles or hundreds of other non-autonomous things that can cause crashes. And why the hell would anyone want an authonomous motorcycle or bicycle??
The second lie is that everyone will use their autonomous car in autonomous mode. If the road is icy, will your car just stop?? Many will not have the patience for that and will take over control if the car deems it too dangerous to continue or drive at an acceptable rate. At least until people lose all of the driving skills.
I can bet with some certainty that autonomous cars won't go over the speed limit. I find it highly doubtful that a majority of the population that now enjoys driving 5-10mph over the speed limit will allow that. And I doubt if autonomous cars are going to include a 'drive over the speed limit' function.
I've thought about this, and while I might enjoy the car taking over for short periods, if I have to sit behind the wheel, I might as well drive. And, quite frankly, I enjoy driving. My daughter and I just drove to Michigan from Phoenix together over 4 days (she was moving). We had a great time. Over the next few months, I'm going to be driving to Florida twice, once by myself. I think it might be great to have a car that can take over if I fall asleep, but what's the use in driving if you can't drive??
I look forward to the technology that comes out of autonomous car tech that will help to reduce crash rates. Improved alerting capability is a great feature, and already available in many cars. The ability to switch it on so one can text or take a phone call is great. I see autonomous features being used periodically, not all the time.
This is no different from adapting to increased internet demand to use their product. Those that adapt will rule the market. Those that don't will die and get taken over by the rulers.
If I am correct, the insurance companies have decades to adapt. As revenues decrease, employees won't be replaced. Further automation will take place. Stock prices may drop and dividends may decrease, but companies don't make money from stock once the stock is sold. Investors can demand change all they want, but if everyone in an industry is in the same boat, the smart ones will flee leaving others holding overpriced shares and watching them tumble. If I was a CEO of an insurance company, I'd start taking advantage of any ability to sell that I can.
Some people won't buy a house with a pool. Some people have to have one. Some people just don't care.
No matter which way you go, there is always someone you can't sell to.
The same is true of certificates. If I see someone with a certificate laden resume, I'd probably pass on someone who is so intent on getting certified. If they had a couple, I probably wouldn't care.
If someone needs certification to learn something, I would question their ability to learn on-the-job as things come up. We are in a rapidly growing field, and I can't wait for certifications to become available, and then pay the added cost of sending someone to get one and the lost wages.
There are plenty of really smart people out there that don't need certification to learn and don't want to work for a big company. I'll let the big companies with their bureaucratic nonsense take the rest.
I've had a Samsung Gear 2 watch now for about a year. I really like it, and don't leave home without it. It has enough conveniences that if it breaks, or I've had it long enough, I'll get another one.
But...
It's not enough to get someone to switch phone types, and neither is the iWatch. Mostly because, with such a small screen, the number of apps is limited. It's not suitable for reading more than a few paragraphs. It's not suitable for typing (other than voice dictation). It's not useful for web browsing.
It's a nice extension for things already on my phone so I can use some phone features without taking it from my pocket. Messaging, calendar and other notifications or nice. Of course it makes using the phone easier, especially taking a phone call when it's just not convenient to take out my phone. It is a watch, so it's more convenient to check the time and date. I use the stopwatch and timer often enough. And the Samsung watch has a camera sufficient for taking quick pictures and Facebook posting (I'll never buy another watch without a camera).
I've tried a few others, including email programs, tiny keyboards, news aggregators, and calculators. All of which have been deleted. The only really convenient one I added was one that lets me use my phone as a remote camera to see behind objects or in tight places. Every other app I've installed, I've removed. Even new watch faces because they burn through the battery. I suppose someone who is a bit OCD would like the health monitors, but I even turned them off as I find my scale is a sufficient indicator of whether or not I'm actually losing weight. And they burn through the battery. (I can get almost 4 days on my Gear, I usually charge it after 3)
I go through the apps in the gear store from time to time and still cannot find any that I feel a need for. The apps I use, in order of most used, are: * receiving text messages (very often) * checking the time (often) * camera (more often than I thought I would) * taking phone calls (sometimes * timer (sometimes) * remote camera (rarely) * stopwatch (rarely) * find my phone (even more rarely)
The only one my phone didn't come with is the remote camera.
Until some new tech comes out that lets me project my watch onto a larger surface with touch screen capability, I doubt if any app developer is going to come up with anything more useful than derivatives of the things already installed.
Ok.. interesting thoughts. I suppose if everyone wants to pay for search engines and email and over-the-air TV and radio and higher ticket prices for NASCAR and NFL and watch most professional sporting events just go away, I'm sure they would support this. Let's just rip off all the car company logos off our cars and stop wearing Nike tshirts or Juicy pants. Sell all products in plain brown boxes and clear plastic with the name of the company stamped in military stencil on the side.
Those things are all advertising also. In for a penny, in for a pound. All or nothing if you are going to do it.
I find ignoring advertising is pretty damn easy, and well worth the free stuff I get in return. It's true, Slashdot and Facebook and Google get some of my information in exchange for selling ads to other people. But I also get to use their services in exchange.
They aren't taking anything, it's a mutually beneficial exchange of services.
Non-GMO foods are free to label their foods as such.
There are no labeling requirements for organic foods. Producers do so because they feel there is a market for it. If there truly is a market for non-GMO foods, then people will be putting 'doesn't contain GMO' stickers on their products.
I'm not taking over 2 hours to commute to work. And the same to commute home. After a 9 hour work day and 8 hours of sleep, that leave 3 hours for getting ready for work, eating dinner, and relaxing after I get home. Nope.. not going to happen. I don't live to work.
I took the bus to work when I was single and lived in the city many years ago. It was just as quick as a car (30 minutes each way), and I didn't have to pay for parking. There is no sense in taking a bus from where I live now, it's only a 35 minute commute. If the bus took an hour each way, I'd probably do it.
Instead, I'm looking at working from home full time in 4 months. In a completely different city, 2,000 miles from the office.
I haven't talked to HR first for any job that I've gotten in the last 20 years. While I have applied for positions without knowing someone in the company first, the jobs I got were a direct result of my knowing someone that knew someone and getting me in front of the right people.
So.. if you are young and inexperienced and haven't developed a deep network of friends in the right places... maybe certification helps.
Once you get an established network, they are of limited value. Studying and passing a certification often exposes holes in one's knowledge. So, other than for self-enrichment, I'd say they are useless. As others have noted, I pay little attention to them when reading resumes. Same with degrees.
I received Linux certification many years ago as part of a teaching gig, and was quite disenchanted when I discovered one other person in the class had never used Linux before studying and taking the certification. That's when I knew they were useless for determining whether or not to hire someone.
I appreciate the right of people to look like idiots walking around talking to their camera. Documenting their journey for no one who cares to see.
Why they think that they are what is worth filming is beyond me. Or that talking while filming is a good choice.
My wife and I love to sail, and watch sailing videos on you-tube. The good ones take pictures of things AROUND them, things I actually want to see. They also either do voiceovers post-production, or use a separate microphone to eliminate wind noise.
The rest are mostly just crap, only of value to the people that shot them. Not really worth sharing to the public.
In our motorcycle group, I've witnessed people just vomit their pictures up to the web, with no care taken to edit or even select only the few that are worth posting. No pride in what they have taken, just a regurgitation of what's in their camera.
Selfie sticks are just more of the same. I'll admit they have some valid uses.
Too bad most people appear to be ignorant of what those uses are.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop giving this treasonous coward more publicity he doesn't deserve. It's one thing to fight the system, it's another to just run away like a coward because you are afraid to face the consequences of your actions. Yep .. he might have gotten tossed in jail. But I guess what he was doing wasn't worth the price of becoming a martyr to him.
He's just a coward .. pure and simple. He's no better than a bank robber who steals and then runs into his little hole and hides.
Or, heaven forbid, people can learn to stop living with so much crap so they don't need so much money. I just recently moved and was ASTOUNDED by the amount of stuff I had, most of which I don't even use. Two months later, I still have crap in boxes that haven't been unpacked because I just don't use them. So, at some point, I spent part of my income on something I didn't really need. To really make the point, 12 years ago when I moved cross country, I used the smallest UHaul trailer there was and towed it behind my car. 9 years ago, when I moved locally, I only need '2 guys and a truck' to move all the furniture and boxes. This time, I needed three moving crates, and we didn't bring one stick of furniture except our bed and two lawn chairs.
Here is an example of living with less. When we moved, we didn't bring any furniture or appliances with us because they take up a lot of space to ship cross country. The house we purchased didn't have a microwave, and we decided not to buy one until we figure out how we are going to deal with the small kitchen.
Two months later, we are considering never buying one. We've re-learned how to take leftovers and cook them into something better rather than just reheating. We don't buy frozen convenience foods anymore. Surprisingly, or food bill has dropped as we consume all of our food instead of throwing it out, and purchase lower cost ingredients instead of higher-cost pre-made foods. My wife has lost 10 pounds, and I've lost 7. Without changing any of our exercise habits, except we now live in a two story home instead of a one story home.
Another example. We no longer commute 40 miles (my wife) or 60 (me) miles a day to work. We moved to a smaller town with a lower cost of living. My commute is now zero, my company allowed me to work from home. My wife's commute is now 20 miles a day. I fill up my car every other week when it reaches about half a tank instead of once a week when it was almost empty. I figure we are saving over $200/month just on gas, both on commuting and just living in a smaller community, and we'll put about 1/3rd the miles on our vehicles.
It is possible right now for my wife to completely stop working with all of the savings we have. She doesn't want to, so are taking her income and just stashing it away for retirement.
If many in the US could find a way to return to one-income households, that would remove a significant amount of labor from the job market and allow for the continued automation of jobs.
But .. just in case, I've got a sailboat ready. If forced to, my wife and I can easily become liveaboards and live off our retirement in the Caribbean without all of the socialist BS so many slackers want.
When I run out of games to play on my Samsung, I still won't consider Apple because I think their interface and control-freak issues mostly suck the big one. My company forced me to have one for awhile, so I had two phones. I just recently gave it back because a 'free' phone is worth exactly that; I'd rather pay for my Android than use a free iPhone.
Fortunately, I'm not one of those people who just have to have the latest game or phone so I can be part of the 'in' crowd. I'm happy waiting until my old phone breaks before getting a new one and playing the few games I have for the few minutes a day I play them because I'm not addicted to my fucking phone.
The problem with the US elections has nothing to do with money (at least not directly) or whether people are capable of deciding who to vote for.
I'll prove it with this statement ... why don't you run for office???
I'll wait while you form a response ....
I'll bet the reasons fell into either it doesn't interest you, you can't afford to take the time off, you don't want the public scrutiny, you don't think you could get elected, you are too busy, or a ton of other reasons.
Which is why we basically have dedicated politicians, only someone who really wants to be a politician wants to run for office. And they usually have some sort of dedicated income so they don't worry about having a job if they lose. Or in 4 years when they get kicked out.
I've talked with a few people who have run for local political positions, and most have said they would never do it again because of the experience. My wife discourages me from public office whenever I bring it up because she was involved in local elections when she was young.
We get the politicians we get because no one else wants the job.
On a side note, I always find it funny that people complain about money in politics, and how they want to get rid of it. But what they really mean is they want to get rid of all the money from groups they don't approve of. They don't want the Koch brothers to have any say, but they don't mind if the Sierra Club or Everytown does. They complain about how money influences politics. But can't answer the question about why, if it influences it so much, doesn't the NRA give a lot of money to anti-gun politicians in order to sway their opinions??
Maybe it's the actions of the politicians that attract the money, not the money changing the actions of the politicians. Doesn't it make more sense for organizations to give money to the politicians they want to get elected rather than give money to those that disagree with them?? In other words, just because ice cream sales go up in the summer and it's hot in the summer doesn't mean that ice cream makes it hot out. Just because the NRA gives money to a politician that votes against gun control doesn't mean that the money caused him to vote that way. After all, Bloomberg has pretty big pockets too.
Really?? Pulling the 'harassment' card out now??? What a moron.
Our company started up some Big Data projects. Well, no one at work knows Big Data, so they went out and hired a bunch of new people. There are no 'old people' on the team. So naturally, none of the 'old people' are going to know it, except possible by some book learning. It's the company's own fault that none of the 'old people' know Big Data, because they won't put them on the teams.
In our company, we do sprints, and only put people in projects that already have the skills necessary to do the work. There is one special team that does research into new tech, but nine times out of ten, we hire people to implement it rather than train internally. Why?? Because we are already all busy and we don't have time to wait for me to train my replacement and then for me to learn the new stuff.
And this crap about new people not knowing the old tech is the same thing. Back in the 'old days', we had a concept where we would rotate people through maintenance and new development. That way they learn multiple systems and skills. But we don't do that anymore because Johnny is a web developer and we need his skills on the web development team. We don't have time for him to learn back end development.
The largest blame for corporations not having 'talented' people is the corporate environment and it's stupid rules. However, there are also a lot of people that won't learn new things, or old things. Mostly because they just aren't as bright as they think they are, and it takes too much effort.
Now, I'm a 56 year old 38 year IT veteran, who started out hacking the college HP so I could get accounts with better priority. I'm the kind of person that says "I don't know it, but I can learn it" and over the years have seen my salary grow because I can just as easily write in COBOL as I can Java, and a host of other languages. I can hand wire serial and network cables, build windows and unix servers, run cables through ceilings, and even administer phone systems. Because I've been lucky enough to work for smaller companies that didn't have the luxury of hiring specialized talents. Or stupid rules about what a developer is allowed to have access to.
My advice to developers is stop working for the big guys, take a small cut in pay and go work for someone that doesn't have a big shop so you can learn lots of stuff. Because, when you can work in any aspect of the IT world, you become far more valuable to your company when they realize they can put you in any project and you can perform.
Those supposed health groups that try and tell all of us that sugar, soda, and corn syrup are all evil and shouldn't be consumed have been playing this same game. How dare Coke try and refute the lies those groups are spreading.
Funny thing, I rarely drink soda anymore, and I'm still overweight. Could it possibly be that other factors are involved?? Like not having enough physical activity?? Or just simply eating too much??
Everyone knows that too many calories and not enough physical activity causes weight gain. But a few feel it is their responsibility to get things banned because some people just can't control their own eating habits. They would ban something that many enjoy in moderation just to impact the few that still will be overweight because they have numerous issues with their caloric intake and burn rates.
I grew up with soda in the house. It was a treat. We had it once in awhile. We always had whole milk for dinner. I drank water in the summer from the hose, and the rest of the time from the tap. I had one or two bowls of sugary cereal every morning for breakfast. Yet I wasn't overweight because I rode my bike or walked everywhere I needed, my parents didn't cart my sorry ass around town unless the weather was really bad. I had a newspaper route, which for some reason has been deemed too dangerous for kids anymore. My parents let me walk the three blocks to the school playground as a young child without worry some nosy busybody would call the cops on them abandoning their kids. Oh .. wait .. my dad was a cop. We ate pizza and had milk shakes in the school cafeteria,. Yet, two years after I graduated from high school, a friends mom said I looked much better than that skinny kid I was in high school. Apparently, school lunches, soda, and sugary cereals don't make kids fat because most of my friends lived the same way.
Soda is not causing our kids to get fat. Frosted Flakes are not causing our kids to get fat.
Parents who don't encourage their kids to get off their asses and play outside are causing our kids to get fat. Parents who don't know how to cook and get carry-out every night are causing our kids to get fat. Parents who believe Kraft Mac and Cheese can be served several nights a week are making our kids fat. Parents who keep large supplies of soda and snacks around the house are making our kids fat.
In general, parents are making our kids fat. And no one else, not even the schools, are responsible.
It's also how you examine and repudiate the bull shit put out by so many people who want to control people's choices by telling everyone soda, corn syrup, and sugar are all evil and no one should every use them.
... but they are GREAT at marketing and making pretty looking products.
EVERY product they have ever come out with was made using existing technology, just packaged in a pretty container.
And people paid more because Apple did a great job at marketing.
There is nothing wrong with that, I won't deny Apple their ability to make tremendous profit margins.
Just stop saying their products are any better than other products.
They are just prettier.
Bull shit on the battery life. I get 3 days on my Samsung watch, 4 if I turn mine off at night. I've had it for over a year and haven't noticed any change in battery life either. I'm sure there are some people that get only 2 days, I did when I first got it and was looking at it every 5 minutes.
They need to add a wireless charge option though, my Samsung phone has that. No reason the watch can't.
And the Apple watch is a toy for even richer liberals. Must be, because it has fewer functions and costs more. (The low end Apple watch doesn't have the same type of screen glass as the one that is priced just higher than the Samsung watch.)
Did you actually have a point???
At the end of the day, my Samsgung watch is at 85%. I easily get 3 days of use before having to recharge. 4 if I turn it off overnight.
Suck it Apple .. you weren't even clever enough to figure out how to make your throwback watch waterproof or figure out how to include a camera.
What an overpriced, last generation POS the Apple watch is. But all the Apple users are like 'Ooooohhh ... look at the pretty button'.
Meh .. if you have an Apple phone, then I guess you are already used to Apple's lackluster choice of options. And lack of innovation. They can only 'innovate' if someone else does it first.
And based on the number if times the climate change fear mongers change their models and find excuses past predictions didn't come close, I'd say any future prediction is just about worthless. At any level.
While I think this is a great advance over current tech, I have current tech on my wrist. And it is very useful. I charge it once every three days, overnight. And while it's display is off all the time, turning it to look at it turns it on, so I don't understand what your complaint is.
I'm sure a minority of people who couldn't afford them complained about the big, bulky cell phones when they first came out and didn't see a need for them. Jealousy often results in such feelings, it's like the Aesop fable about the fox who couldn't reach the grapes, and concluded they were probably sour anyway. Many like that wouldn't survive a day without their modern cell phone.
But ... back to your real point .. I also see no reason why a gray-scale device like this wouldn't be perfect. There is nothing on my current smart watch that requires color, other than to make things look pretty. However, it will have to have some type of light to be view-able in the dark.
And a camera. It has to have a camera. So many current models don't have one, and they are missing out on one of the most convenient features of a wearable computer.
So, your solution is to penalize all of those that know how to use a gun in order to stop the few that cause problems. Which has been shown repeatedly doesn't work, criminals are a very creative bunch. Instead, people point to senseless statistics as if killing 9 people is acceptable, but 10 is not.
You sir, sound like an idiot. An idiot who likes to generalize. I've known many people who shoot, and the vast majority of them are not beer drinking good 'ol boys. They are my neighbors, my family, my friends, and my fellow geeky workers.
NRA doesn't 'pander' to anyone. The NRA is supported by millions of people who use guns, and it simply echos their views. The tired generalization that somehow the NRA is pushing an agenda is misplaced, the millions of VOTERS who support the NRA are pushing an agenda. The NRA is no different from the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, who also are supported by millions of people who help to shape their agendas.
The real problem is idiots who think they know what is best for everyone else, probably because their ego is so huge. The majority of gun owners I know simply want to be left alone and allowed to target shoot in peace, buy a gun whenever they find one they like, and be able to defend themselves if necessary.
I am also anti-stupid-fucking-idiot-with-a-gun. The problem is determining who the stupid-fucking-idiots are. I personally don't trust you to make that judgement, it sounds to me you are like most car drivers .. everyone driving faster than you is an asshole and everyone driving slower is an idiot. You talk like you would think you are the only one that knows exactly the right speed to travel.
When you and your fellow anti-gun fanatics can come up with a method that keeps guns out of the hands of the very small minority of criminals and allow the far greater number of legal gun owners to go out and target shoot, carry a gun for defensive purposes, and collect guns without being overly burdened with fees or procedures, or having to register their property, let me know.
Until then, please leave me the fuck alone. Your tired, ignorant rhetoric is getting boring. My wife an I own several revolvers, pistols, bolt-action rifles, and semi-automatic rifles. Never once has any of them been pointed at another person or animal. They have been used to shred a large number of paper targets and put holes into plastic water-filled bottles (which where collected and recycled afterward.) They have been used to help my wife sleep at night when I'm away. And to make me feel a bit safer investigating what that noise was at night.In my 56 years of living, and probably 46 years of shooting, no one has been even remotely put into danger by my actions.
Insinuating that somehow I shouldn't be allowed to have guns because you know someone who is an idiot or because someone else shot somebody is just moronic. If we used that logic, we should also remove all the cars from the roads and knives from our kitchens.
Oh wait .. several years ago in the UK, a bunch of people suggested just that .. that pointy kitchen knives had no use other than killing people and should be banned. It seems that once guns were effectively banned, people started finding other ways to kill people. I can't wait for the day when cricket bats become the weapon of choice. Oh .. wait ... during some riots in London, miniature baseball bats became the self-defense weapon of choice when the unarmed police couldn't control the crowds.
The real problem is a very small minority of people sometimes want to hurt other people. And all the banning of devices in the world will never stop that.
The first lie is that everyone will use autonomous cars in any recent period. It will take decades to get the old cars off the roads. And there are no autonomous motorcycles or scooters or bicycles or hundreds of other non-autonomous things that can cause crashes. And why the hell would anyone want an authonomous motorcycle or bicycle??
The second lie is that everyone will use their autonomous car in autonomous mode. If the road is icy, will your car just stop?? Many will not have the patience for that and will take over control if the car deems it too dangerous to continue or drive at an acceptable rate. At least until people lose all of the driving skills.
I can bet with some certainty that autonomous cars won't go over the speed limit. I find it highly doubtful that a majority of the population that now enjoys driving 5-10mph over the speed limit will allow that. And I doubt if autonomous cars are going to include a 'drive over the speed limit' function.
I've thought about this, and while I might enjoy the car taking over for short periods, if I have to sit behind the wheel, I might as well drive. And, quite frankly, I enjoy driving. My daughter and I just drove to Michigan from Phoenix together over 4 days (she was moving). We had a great time. Over the next few months, I'm going to be driving to Florida twice, once by myself. I think it might be great to have a car that can take over if I fall asleep, but what's the use in driving if you can't drive??
I look forward to the technology that comes out of autonomous car tech that will help to reduce crash rates. Improved alerting capability is a great feature, and already available in many cars. The ability to switch it on so one can text or take a phone call is great. I see autonomous features being used periodically, not all the time.
This is no different from adapting to increased internet demand to use their product. Those that adapt will rule the market. Those that don't will die and get taken over by the rulers.
If I am correct, the insurance companies have decades to adapt. As revenues decrease, employees won't be replaced. Further automation will take place. Stock prices may drop and dividends may decrease, but companies don't make money from stock once the stock is sold. Investors can demand change all they want, but if everyone in an industry is in the same boat, the smart ones will flee leaving others holding overpriced shares and watching them tumble. If I was a CEO of an insurance company, I'd start taking advantage of any ability to sell that I can.
Yawn ... nothing to see here... move along.
Some people won't buy a house with a pool. Some people have to have one. Some people just don't care.
No matter which way you go, there is always someone you can't sell to.
The same is true of certificates. If I see someone with a certificate laden resume, I'd probably pass on someone who is so intent on getting certified. If they had a couple, I probably wouldn't care.
If someone needs certification to learn something, I would question their ability to learn on-the-job as things come up. We are in a rapidly growing field, and I can't wait for certifications to become available, and then pay the added cost of sending someone to get one and the lost wages.
There are plenty of really smart people out there that don't need certification to learn and don't want to work for a big company. I'll let the big companies with their bureaucratic nonsense take the rest.
I've had a Samsung Gear 2 watch now for about a year. I really like it, and don't leave home without it. It has enough conveniences that if it breaks, or I've had it long enough, I'll get another one.
But ...
It's not enough to get someone to switch phone types, and neither is the iWatch. Mostly because, with such a small screen, the number of apps is limited. It's not suitable for reading more than a few paragraphs. It's not suitable for typing (other than voice dictation). It's not useful for web browsing.
It's a nice extension for things already on my phone so I can use some phone features without taking it from my pocket. Messaging, calendar and other notifications or nice. Of course it makes using the phone easier, especially taking a phone call when it's just not convenient to take out my phone. It is a watch, so it's more convenient to check the time and date. I use the stopwatch and timer often enough. And the Samsung watch has a camera sufficient for taking quick pictures and Facebook posting (I'll never buy another watch without a camera).
I've tried a few others, including email programs, tiny keyboards, news aggregators, and calculators. All of which have been deleted. The only really convenient one I added was one that lets me use my phone as a remote camera to see behind objects or in tight places. Every other app I've installed, I've removed. Even new watch faces because they burn through the battery. I suppose someone who is a bit OCD would like the health monitors, but I even turned them off as I find my scale is a sufficient indicator of whether or not I'm actually losing weight. And they burn through the battery. (I can get almost 4 days on my Gear, I usually charge it after 3)
I go through the apps in the gear store from time to time and still cannot find any that I feel a need for. The apps I use, in order of most used, are:
* receiving text messages (very often)
* checking the time (often)
* camera (more often than I thought I would)
* taking phone calls (sometimes
* timer (sometimes)
* remote camera (rarely)
* stopwatch (rarely)
* find my phone (even more rarely)
The only one my phone didn't come with is the remote camera.
Until some new tech comes out that lets me project my watch onto a larger surface with touch screen capability, I doubt if any app developer is going to come up with anything more useful than derivatives of the things already installed.
Ok .. interesting thoughts. I suppose if everyone wants to pay for search engines and email and over-the-air TV and radio and higher ticket prices for NASCAR and NFL and watch most professional sporting events just go away, I'm sure they would support this. Let's just rip off all the car company logos off our cars and stop wearing Nike tshirts or Juicy pants. Sell all products in plain brown boxes and clear plastic with the name of the company stamped in military stencil on the side.
Those things are all advertising also. In for a penny, in for a pound. All or nothing if you are going to do it.
I find ignoring advertising is pretty damn easy, and well worth the free stuff I get in return. It's true, Slashdot and Facebook and Google get some of my information in exchange for selling ads to other people. But I also get to use their services in exchange.
They aren't taking anything, it's a mutually beneficial exchange of services.
Non-GMO foods are free to label their foods as such.
There are no labeling requirements for organic foods. Producers do so because they feel there is a market for it. If there truly is a market for non-GMO foods, then people will be putting 'doesn't contain GMO' stickers on their products.
So .. shut the fuck up.
Kinda like when one cross breeds ....
I'm not taking over 2 hours to commute to work. And the same to commute home. After a 9 hour work day and 8 hours of sleep, that leave 3 hours for getting ready for work, eating dinner, and relaxing after I get home. Nope .. not going to happen. I don't live to work.
I took the bus to work when I was single and lived in the city many years ago. It was just as quick as a car (30 minutes each way), and I didn't have to pay for parking. There is no sense in taking a bus from where I live now, it's only a 35 minute commute. If the bus took an hour each way, I'd probably do it.
Instead, I'm looking at working from home full time in 4 months. In a completely different city, 2,000 miles from the office.
Much better alternative ....
No? Then fuck you Australia.
I haven't talked to HR first for any job that I've gotten in the last 20 years. While I have applied for positions without knowing someone in the company first, the jobs I got were a direct result of my knowing someone that knew someone and getting me in front of the right people.
So .. if you are young and inexperienced and haven't developed a deep network of friends in the right places ... maybe certification helps.
Once you get an established network, they are of limited value. Studying and passing a certification often exposes holes in one's knowledge. So, other than for self-enrichment, I'd say they are useless. As others have noted, I pay little attention to them when reading resumes. Same with degrees.
I received Linux certification many years ago as part of a teaching gig, and was quite disenchanted when I discovered one other person in the class had never used Linux before studying and taking the certification. That's when I knew they were useless for determining whether or not to hire someone.
I appreciate the right of people to look like idiots walking around talking to their camera. Documenting their journey for no one who cares to see.
Why they think that they are what is worth filming is beyond me. Or that talking while filming is a good choice.
My wife and I love to sail, and watch sailing videos on you-tube. The good ones take pictures of things AROUND them, things I actually want to see. They also either do voiceovers post-production, or use a separate microphone to eliminate wind noise.
The rest are mostly just crap, only of value to the people that shot them. Not really worth sharing to the public.
In our motorcycle group, I've witnessed people just vomit their pictures up to the web, with no care taken to edit or even select only the few that are worth posting. No pride in what they have taken, just a regurgitation of what's in their camera.
Selfie sticks are just more of the same. I'll admit they have some valid uses.
Too bad most people appear to be ignorant of what those uses are.